Please disseminate widely, thank you! This does not give permission to alter or claim credit for this re-mixed work, for which I retain all copyrights. The original illustration is in the public domain.

If you disagree with the views expressed here, please be sure to read my Policy Statement BEFORE you post: [link]

This past week, Americans were treated to the reactionary, misogynist right's view of reproductive biology, which apparently posits that women's Fallopian tubes go into spasm or something and defeat the sperm of forcible rapists, as if there were some other kind.

Congressman Todd Akin, who drew rebukes from every Republican worth mentioning, has a 90% positive rating from the national right to life organization, but that makes him a piker compared to GOP Vice Presidential candidate Congressman Paul Ryan, who draws a 100% positive rating. Their party stands on an abortion plank that calls for the total outlawing of the procedure, with no exception for the life or health of the mother, or for cases of rape or incest. The Republican Party is America's Taliban.

The sad part is most of the republican party stands behind his views but would never say it out loud because of the media storm like what happened in this case. They're distancing themselves and acting pissed because he let it slip not because he actually believes it. These are the same idiots that threw a woman out of a Congressional hearing over abortion because she said the word vagina. " I would never use that kind of language in mixed company" was the exact words I believe.

Unfortunately, that's a common misunderstanding. The phrase "separation of church and state" never actually appears in our constitution; and even Thomas Jefferson, the man who originally coined the phrase in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, meant it more as a fact that we have no state religion, unlike most Islamic nations, where the state religion dictates the laws, no matter how barbaric they may seem.

The First Amendment actually states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The only thing this means is that the government can't favor one religious group over another or prevent people from practicing their religion (though it hasn't stopped them from trying). In other words, these assclowns can make all the laws they want based on their tight-ass religion as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's.

Disregarding the misunderstanding there, the whole thing seems so incredibly backwards to me. It being up for any kind of debate at all seems mind-boggling. That someone, hell, more than one person wants it to be America, the land of freedom and choice, unless you're a woman and that choice has to do with you having something in your uterus, then you don't get any say at all - it beggars belief.

Because we're America, land of the free, where you're free to express your opinion, even if your opinion is stupid, ignorant, arrogant, backwards, and just plain wrong... And you have no idea how much I wish there was a sarcasm font for the first half of that statement.

Put bluntly, abortion didn't become legal in the US until 1976; by comparison, most on the Supreme Court and not a few in Congress, the people who make these laws, were raised during a time when it was illegal to teach evolution in schools and whose mothers could likely remember what it was like to not be allowed to vote. How you're raised shapes who you are. Is it any wonder these old dinosaurs make judgements based on antiquated beliefs?

By the by, given the way this country actually runs, I would not be a bit surprised if places that make baby things found wackjobs like Akin in the most rural part of Bum Fuck Egypt, plopped his ass on a podium to spout this shit, and make abortion illegal again so that they (the companies) could rake in millions from all the babies about to be born. After all, shit like that happens with the car companies and the oil tycoons; why do you think this nation is still so reliant on fossil fuels?

Well, looking at it like that, that does make more sense. Politics is an old mans game, as they say. It's funny how as much as things change they stay the same with regards to politicians elected to serve third party interests. That's a concept as old as democracy itself.

Well, in lieu of having anything more to add to the subject other than my still abject incomprehension that this is, in fact, a thing, I will just say that I hope common sense wins out here.

I read about this.............are Americans living in the Dark Ages STILLTotally disgusting.Anyone who votes Republican in the next Election will be taking their Country down a 'long slippery slope' which women fought SO hard to stop.Thank you SO much for this.I am sending it out.Hugs

I think it was ABC in that guy's district/region/whatever asking around what they thought of his stance and it was one woman and three men, all older (60+) and white. None were poor looking. All agreed with him 100%.

An entire segment of the population is so out of touch with the world around them it's disgusting.

Legally speaking, the term forcible rape refers to rape committed through, or in conjunction with, violent force of one form or another. Either a gun or a knife was used, or there is beatings involved, restraints, things of this nature, as well as including tearing/damage in the genital regions of the victim.

Basically, they're looking for violent force and signs of a struggle/resistance on the part of the victim, to "prove" that the victim "was actually raped." I know this from experience.

What this legislation would have the country do is 'only' count that 'type' of rape.. as rape. There are forms where the victim is drugged, thus there wouldn't be any signs of a struggle. There are the alcohol-related ones; the victim is too drunk to know what's happening, thus also a lack of physical struggle, though tearing and damage would still be present, depending on what the perp did during the act.

There are multiple ways that rapists perform their act that would leave the victim showing no signs of actual bruising/injury, etc, and ALL of those would suddenly cease to be prosecutable... and that is a BIG problem.

The other problem is that most rapes are not committed by the stranger in the alley on the dark street. They are more commonly committed by people the victim actually knows, and trusted. And those types also have a tendency to involve little to no physical signs of force/struggle. Not always, but often enough.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if many a Republican bases their ideas on rape from the many falsehoods about it that go against their strict ideology. [link]

And I guess they're also upset because the struggle for women's liberation against patriarchy also ofteng goes hand in hand with the struggle for the working class's liberation against the corporate capitalist system, as gender and class (along with race, sexual orientation, etc.) go hand in hand to create a form of oppression that benefits those who have already benefited for centuries from exploiting those who just want a piece of the pie, the ruling class resisting any step toward benefitting the oppressed.